Re: GPL and inhouse use?
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I was answering a specific concern `code that offers a service to >> the public'. > >Which would include a copy of GNU/Linux and/or Firefox running on a >public library computer. It is not "perfectly reasonable" for anybody >but yourself to demand that the library will then consequently be >forced to hand out copies of the source code on demand. > >Not even the FSF has such a contorted view of things. > > Do you want me to ask the FSF? You are the confused person. I have no doubt about the outcome. > If you say `yes', then I'll send the following question to legal@: > Must a library the runs a modified version of GNU Emacs provide the > source code for this modified version of GNU Emacs to the users who > use the libraries (public) system? > > If you don't like the question, feel free to rephrase it in some > manner that suits you. You could try to make it grammatical. >> Please David, learn to read instead of resorting to Terkhovian >> methods. > >Pointing out that your views are not shared by anybody else is >hardly "Terkhovian". > > Pointing out views which have no relation to my opinion about > whatever matter is Terkhovian. This wasn't about redistributing > in-house programs, it was was redistribution of _public_ programs. No, it wasn't. It was about in-house programs used for providing a public service. And your name-calling does not help in muddling your confusion. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and inhouse use?
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Pointing out views which have no relation to my opinion about >> whatever matter is Terkhovian. This wasn't about redistributing >> in-house programs, it was was redistribution of _public_ >> programs. > >No, it wasn't. It was about in-house programs used for providing a >public service. > > "I was answering a specific concern `code that offers a service to the > public'." > > No, nothing in-house in there. I'd quote more parts, if I could find > the old message. Please read, please follow the thread, please stop > being a jack ass. Since you are incapable of using your Usenet client (why does this not surprise me?), here is the relevant article (and please notice the subject line which is still in every posting of the thread): Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss From: Merijn de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: GPL and inhouse use? Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On 2006-05-16, Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Merijn de Weerd wrote: >> Suppose you add a lot of code to implement a really robust and >> unique embedded software stack that makes a great product. You'd >> want to keep that proprietary to prevent your competition from >> gaining the same advantage that you just worked months or years to >> create. Yet, you have to share if you build upon GPL software. >> The same should apply to the in-house environment you describe. >> > so its basically "if i modify any gpl'd code I must give away my changes > whether or not i keep it 'in-house' "? ^^ Right now the GPL makes a distinction for in-house code. Only if you distribute binaries do you have to share the source. I was just saying that that should change: also in-house code should be shared, once it's out of testing. [...] Somebody with a bad memory like that should get a Usenet reader capable of following a thread. I recommend using Gnus. And you really should cut down on your condescension and name-calling, given that the thread topic is still in the subject line. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and inhouse use?
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Since you are incapable of using your Usenet client > > I don't use usenet. > >>> The same should apply to the in-house environment you describe. > > > Something which I was not answering. Who was the one pontificating about thread drift? >Somebody with a bad memory like that should get a Usenet reader >capable of following a thread. I recommend using Gnus. > > For usenet you need a news server, GNU doesn't run its own (I think > they did once). GNUs can also handle your mail, sort it into appropriate groups, keep track of threads and the relations between mails. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: what is the current status of GPL v3
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Guh-NÜ-slash-Hurd is also a compilation. > > GNU isn't, it is a operating system, a single entity, developed by > the FSF. Since when is X11 developed by the FSF? You are making a spectacle of yourself again. There is no need to contradict _everything_ Alexander says. There are those rare moments in between where he accidentally happens to be correct about something. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: what is the current status of GPL v3
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> GNU isn't a compilation of programs either. It is a operating >> system. > >Well, whatever it is, it isn't Unix! > > :-) > >GNU is more than an operating system - Emacs, for example, is part >of GNU, though it's definitely not part of an OS, and there are >LOTS of GNU programs like that. > > Emacs is indeed part of the GNU operating system. Each and every > GNU project is part of the GNU operating system. Note that GNU is > the system that the GNU project is developing. No. GNU is the system that the GNU project is putting together. Parts of this system are actually developed by the GNU projects, others are just assembled. >This is the "mere aggregation" that the GPL talks about - lots of >independent programs packaged together on a single CD or a single >FTP site. > > It is `mere aggregation' for other operating systems, like > GNU/Linux. It is mere aggregation for GNU/Hurd as well, with some adaptation (like of the BSDlite networking utilities) to boot. > GNU Emacs might be part of the operating system for some specific > distribution of GNU/Linux though. You are really embarrassing when your propaganda urge goes out of control. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: what is the current status of GPL v3
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> GNU isn't, it is a operating system, a single entity, developed by >> the FSF. > >Since when is X11 developed by the FSF? > > What does a protocol have to do with this? You are making a spectacle of yourself again. The X Windows system consists of an X server and client libraries communicating via a network transparent protocol. The X server and the client libraries are part of every GNU workstation, and certainly are not developed by the FSF. >You are making a spectacle of yourself again. There is no need to >contradict _everything_ Alexander says. > > From the GNU project web page: > > | The GNU Project was launched in 1984 to develop a complete UNIX > | like operating system which is free software: the GNU system (GNU > | is a recursive acronym for "GNU's Not UNIX"; it is pronounced > | guh-noo, like canoe.) There is a difference between assembling a system, and developing its components. The FSF certainly does not develop X11. > From the GNU manifest: > > | GNU, which stands for Gnu's Not Unix, is the name for the complete > | Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can > | give it away free to everyone who can use it.(1) Several other > | volunteers are helping me. Contributions of time, money, programs > | and equipment are greatly needed. Guess what: manifest or not, hero worship or not, Richard has not been responsible for all of what is subsumed into a GNU system. And if you actually believe that, you are being spectacularly dense. Just read all the copyright notices. >There are those rare moments in between where he accidentally >happens to be correct about something. > > This isn't one of those times. There is a common confusion around, > among GNU hackers too it seems, that GNU is a bunch of tools, it > isn't. It is a single entity, an operating system. Put together as a compilation of separate independent and interoperating components, more than half of which are developed outside of the control of the FSF (like BSDlite, the X11 system and other stuff). And yes, assembling all those components into one operating system meets the criteria of "compilation": the individual copyrights are retained. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and inhouse use?
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Something which I was not answering. > >Who was the one pontificating about thread drift? > > What problem do you have about answering specific things in a single > thread? Seriously, did Terekhov suck your brains out this week? Your blind fanatism and wild rhetoric is not exactly serving your cause. >> For usenet you need a news server, GNU doesn't run its own (I >> think they did once). > >GNUs can also handle your mail, sort it into appropriate groups, >keep track of threads and the relations between mails. > > That is nice, I prefer rmail. It just shows you off as a fool who can't get the history of a discussion straight and is unable to properly attribute articles. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > David Kastrup wrote: >> > [...] >> >> > Wallace brought forth the GPL. The GPL is his evidence. >> >> >> >> Yes. No facts compatible with his claim of predatory pricing. >> > >> > And how do you know? >> >> By virtue of having a brain. > > Here's an exercise for your brain. First, I'll address your remark in > reply to mini-RMS: > > | > But of course, in Therekovian there's only one incentive for "life": > | > getting money. > | > | Last time I looked, RedHat was getting money. > > This fact is compatible with Wallace's claim of predatory pricing > conspiracy pursuant to the GPL. Those ancillary revenues from "no > charge" GPL'd code can NOT "explain the lengths to which" > Microsoft^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HRed Hat "has gone" (see below). It could > have been BSD and alike licensed code in its entirety which Red Hat > could have used to produce those ancillary revenues, and Wallace > doesn't have any problems with RedHat's use of BSD and alike > licensed code which doesn't price-fix IP at predatory level. Reality check: bundling BSD and alike licensed code is, for example, the business model of Theo de Raadt. His earnings are utterly peanuts compared to those of RedHat. > The Judge in Microsoft antitrust case ruled: > > "Proof that a profit-maximizing firm took predatory action should > suffice to demonstrate the threat of substantial exclusionary effect; > to hold otherwise would be to ascribe irrational behavior to the > defendant. Moreover, predatory conduct, by definition as well as by > nature, lacks procompetitive business motivation. But you are glossing over the fact that there is hardly a more competitive market than the Linux market. It has hundreds of participants and a very low barrier of entry. > Note that Wallace's case is an action under § 1 of the Sherman Act. "purports to be" rather than "is". > The anticompetitive nature of the GNU GPL is no-brainer. That must explain why there is _lots_ of competition in the Linux market. > The GNU project was designed to be anticompetitive. Go read the GNU > Manifesto. It does not say anything like that. Here are a few quotes: Complete system sources will be available to everyone. As a result, a user who needs changes in the system will always be free to make them himself, or hire any available programmer or company to make them for him. Users will no longer be at the mercy of one programmer or company which owns the sources and is in sole position to make changes. Releasing the dependence on a particular programmer or company creates rather than curbs competition. We must distinguish between support in the form of real programming work and mere handholding. The former is something one cannot rely on from a software vendor. If your problem is not shared by enough people, the vendor will tell you to get lost. Where is competition if a vendor can tell you to get lost? If your business needs to be able to rely on support, the only way is to have all the necessary sources and tools. Then you can hire any available person to fix your problem; you are not at the mercy of any individual. Where is not being at the mercy of a single provider anticompetitive? Such services could be provided by companies that sell just hand-holding and repair service. If it is true that users would rather spend money and get a product with service, they will also be willing to buy the service having got the product free. The service companies will compete in quality and price; users will not be tied to any particular one. Meanwhile, those of us who don't need the service should be able to use the program without paying for the service. Here Stallman actually talks about "compete". > http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html > > "GNU will remove operating system software from the realm of > competition. You will not be able to get an edge in this area, but > neither will your competitors be able to get an edge over you. You > and they will compete in other areas, while benefiting mutually in > this one. If your business is selling an operating system, you will > not like GNU, but that's tough on you. If your business is something > else, GNU can save you from being pushed into the expensive business > of selling operating systems." Looks like Stallman was wrong about that one: while one can't _secure_ an edge over competitors, _getting_ an edge is wh
Re: GPL and inhouse use?
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> That is nice, I prefer rmail. > >It just shows you off as a fool who can't get the history of a >discussion straight and is unable to properly attribute articles. > > Then feel free to tell this to anyone who uses rmail, this includes > RMS. In case you haven't noticed, RMS does not participate in public discussion groups. And he does not go about lecturing people about what the topic of a thread is supposed to be. Your hero worship makes you appear like a complete and utter idiot, and it does not help the case of who you imagine to be supporting. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: what is the current status of GPL v3
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >The X Windows system consists of an X server and client libraries >communicating via a network transparent protocol. > > The X window system is a protocol, like FTP. Maybe you mean XFree86 > or X.Org? A X window system implementation is infact part of the > GNU system; which I do not know since none really work very well > with the Hurd. > > FTP is part of every GNU work station, but the procotol, like X, > isn't developed by the FSF. Neither are the FTP clients. You are desparately clutching at straws. >There is a difference between assembling a system, and developing >its components. The FSF certainly does not develop X11. > > Neither does the FSF develop FTP, SMTP, Gopher, HTTP, I fail > to see what protocols have to do with this. So does anybody else. The protocols are a blatant red herring brought up by yourself. The topic is the programs and libraries constituting a GNU system. And those are to a significant degree developed by third parties and used as components in a compilation. >Guess what: manifest or not, hero worship or not, Richard has not >been responsible for all of what is subsumed into a GNU system. >And if you actually believe that, you are being spectacularly >dense. Just read all the copyright notices. > > As the head for the GNU project he is responsible for it. He might > not have written every single line, but he is the head of the GNU > project, whether you like it or not. And that is what St. IGNUcius > says. It is irrelevant to the copyright situation. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: what is the current status of GPL v3
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >No. GNU is the system that the GNU project is putting together. > > No? So Emacs isn't part of the GNU system? Do you mean that Richard > never ever _really_ intended Emacs to be part of GNU system? And that > it was an evil plot to make you act in this absurd way? Your strawmen get more ridiculous by the minute. >Parts of this system are actually developed by the GNU projects, >others are just assembled. > > http://www.gnu.org: "to develop a complete UNIX like operating > system" I don't see anything about being assembled. Care you quote? Licenses The X.Org Foundation March 2004 1. Introduction The X.org Foundation X Window System distribution is a compilation of code and documentation from many sources. This document is intended primarily as a guide to the licenses used in the distribution: you must check each file and/or package for precise redistribution terms. None-the-less, this summary may be useful to many users. No software incorporating the XFree86 1.1 license has been incorporated. This document is based on the compilation from XFree86. 2. XFree86 License XFree86 code without an explicit copyright is covered by the following copy- right/license: Copyright (C) 1994-2003 The XFree86 Project, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is fur- nished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FIT- NESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE XFREE86 PROJECT BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CON- NECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. Except as contained in this notice, the name of the XFree86 Project shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other deal- ings in this Software without prior written authorization from the XFree86 Project. 3. Other Licenses Portions of code are covered by the following licenses/copyrights. See indi- vidual files for the copyright dates. 3.1 X/MIT Copyrights 3.1.1 X Consortium Copyright (C) X Consortium [...] And so forth and so on. You think those guys are lying and in reality this code has been written by RMS, or what? >> It is `mere aggregation' for other operating systems, like >> GNU/Linux. > >It is mere aggregation for GNU/Hurd as well, with some adaptation >(like of the BSDlite networking utilities) to boot. > > That is nice, I'm talking about the GNU operating system as > developed by the GNU project, which is sponsored by the FSF. Which > is what you, and I, are working on. I find it amazing that a long > time GNU hacker as yourself has no knowledge of what GNU actually > is. I find it amazing that you live in your fairy world where you let no realities intrude on your "insights" seemingly solely based on reading the GNU Manifesto and interpreting it as gospel instead of a statement of intent and persuasion. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: what is the current status of GPL v3
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> FTP is part of every GNU work station, but the procotol, like X, >> isn't developed by the FSF. > >Neither are the FTP clients. > > So GNU inetutils which provides GNU ftp isn't part of the GNU system? > Nor is the GNU ftpd which GNU inetutils also provides part of the GNU > system? http://www.gnu.org/software/inetutils/> InetUtils is a collection of common network programs. It includes (amongst others): * An ftp client and server. * A telnet client and server. * An rsh client and server. * An rlogin client and server. * A tftp client and server. These are improved versions of programs originally from BSD. >>There is a difference between assembling a system, and >>developing its components. The FSF certainly does not develop >>X11. >> >> Neither does the FSF develop FTP, SMTP, Gopher, HTTP, I >> fail to see what protocols have to do with this. > >So does anybody else. The protocols are a blatant red herring >brought up by yourself. The topic is the programs and libraries >constituting a GNU system. And those are to a significant degree >developed by third parties and used as components in a compilation. > > Emacs was to a significant degreed developed by third parties, I > guess it too isn't part of the GNU system. Is is a component of a compilation, but as such is a single entity (with very few exceptions (c) FSF due to the practice of copyright assignments) and has been developed mostly as a single entity. However, there are subsystems (like calc) which have historically been distributed as separate entities. So parts of Emacs can be considered aggregated. There is no necessity for drawing a line here, however, since copyright and license for the components in distribution rest with FSF and the GPL. > Nor is GCC, which is being developed by RedHat, and then we have the > GNU C library which also is being developed by RedHat. It sure is part of any GNU system, in the form of an aggregation (in the case of GCC). The C library, however, is linked with the executables, and that exceeds mere aggregation. The C library, however, is licensed under the LGPL. >> As the head for the GNU project he is responsible for it. He >> might not have written every single line, but he is the head of >> the GNU project, whether you like it or not. And that is what >> St. IGNUcius says. > >It is irrelevant to the copyright situation. > > The copyright situation doesn't dictate if something is part or not > of an operating system, or a project. Looks like you again confused what this thread is supposed to be about. You objected against GNU systems being a compilation, and that concerns its copyright situation and nothing else. You really should get a mail client suitable for your short attention span. > GCC isn't fully copyrighted by the FSF, neither are many projects, > yet they are GNU projects, then there are non-GNU projects which are > part of the GNU system. Which, for that reason, is mostly to be considered a compilation with regard to the copyright situation. > Please do something useful, it is quite sad that you cannot even > acknowledge that you are simply trolling right now. Not sharing your delusions is hardly trolling. > I sometimes wonder if you are infact worse than Alexander, atleast > he can be funny at times. You mean: at least you don't look too silly in comparison with him. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: what is the current status of GPL v3
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> It sure is part of any GNU system, in the form of an aggregation (in
>> the case of GCC). The C library, however, is linked with the
>> executables, and that exceeds mere aggregation. The C library,
>> however, is licensed under the LGPL.
>
> Function calls have no impact on copyright status of combined work.
The law begs to differ.
> It's still a compilation ("mere aggregation" in GNU speak), not a
> derivative work ("modified work as a whole" in GPL 2b speak).
We are not talking about merely "function calls" in Glibc, but mostly
a standardized interface (POSIX). Where you can drop-in replace the
library with an existing independent one, aggregation is a plausible
interpretation (there has been a readline clone mostly for legal
purposes IIRC, and the stance of the FSF towards Motif interfaces has
changed with the availability/feasability of Lesstif, even before
Motif got opensourced). Standard compliant libraries from the GNU
project tend to be LGPL, and I guess that is because the alternatives
could force the FSF into undesirable lawsuits with uncertain outcome.
However, for nonstandard libraries and code bodies, the FSF feels
comfortable enough about its interpretation of the legal situation
that they are usually licensed under the GPL (as long as the FSF is
copyright holder). Up to now, nobody was willing to have this tested
in court, so it seems they are not alone with that interpretation.
Companies like Trolltech live from the proceeds on the dual-licensed
GPL/propriatary Qt toolkit, so it appears that nobody is willing to
bet against Trolltech here, either (and Trolltech is not exactly a
large shop).
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: what is the current status of GPL v3
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote: > [...] >> holders. Like Linux, or is Linux also a compilation according to you? > > Linux is a compilation according to copyright law. Depends on what you call "Linux". A typical GNU/Linux distribution certainly is (Alfred's opinion notwithstanding). The kernel alone, however, is rather a composite work derived and authored by several parties. Its components are no longer independent bodies of work. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> > | Last time I looked, RedHat was getting money. >> > >> > This fact is compatible with Wallace's claim of predatory pricing >> > conspiracy pursuant to the GPL. Those ancillary revenues from "no >> > charge" GPL'd code can NOT "explain the lengths to which" >> > Microsoft^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HRed Hat "has gone" (see below). It could >> > have been BSD and alike licensed code in its entirety which Red Hat >> > could have used to produce those ancillary revenues, and Wallace >> > doesn't have any problems with RedHat's use of BSD and alike >> > licensed code which doesn't price-fix IP at predatory level. >> >> Reality check: bundling BSD and alike licensed code is, for example, >> the business model of Theo de Raadt. His earnings are utterly peanuts >> compared to those of RedHat. > > Bundling BSD and alike licensed code is, for example, the business > model of Apple Computer, Inc. (OS X and Darwin). No. It is a resource of Apple computer, not a business model. OS X never has been licensed under a free software license. You are again being in fantasy land. The only thing that ever has been free was Darwin, and Apple has just clamped down on Darwin on the x86 platform: no more source available. The business model of Apple is selling proprietary software. A more interesting case would be Opensolaris (which is BSD-derived, after all). One will have to see how this pans out. But it does not appear like the market is too eager for non-copylefted free software. >> > The Judge in Microsoft antitrust case ruled: >> > >> > "Proof that a profit-maximizing firm took predatory action should >> > suffice to demonstrate the threat of substantial exclusionary effect; >> > to hold otherwise would be to ascribe irrational behavior to the >> > defendant. Moreover, predatory conduct, by definition as well as by >> > nature, lacks procompetitive business motivation. >> >> But you are glossing over the fact that there is hardly a more >> competitive market than the Linux market. It has hundreds of >> participants and a very low barrier of entry. > > What you call "the Linux market" (packaging, patches delivery, etc.) > are ancillary markets to the market Wallace's case is about. Hardly. Wallace is complaining that he can't sell the "intellectual property" he would like to sell because nobody is buying. But the "ancillary markets" are the one paying for development. You don't make money off an operating system without it being employed anywhere. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: what is the current status of GPL v3
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > "Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote: >> > [...] >> >> holders. Like Linux, or is Linux also a compilation according to you? >> > >> > Linux is a compilation according to copyright law. >> >> Depends on what you call "Linux". A typical GNU/Linux distribution >> certainly is (Alfred's opinion notwithstanding). The kernel alone, >> however, is rather a composite work derived and authored by several >> parties. Its components are no longer independent bodies of work. > > Why don't you simply check it yourself. There's tons of separate and > independent bodies of code in the Linux kernel and they are even > under different licenses. Does not make them independent. For that reason, no GPL-incompatible parts are admitted into the kernel. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> > Bundling BSD and alike licensed code is, for example, the business >> > model of Apple Computer, Inc. (OS X and Darwin). >> >> No. > > http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/x11/ > http://darwinsource.opendarwin.org/10.4.6.x86/ Again: the BSD stuff is not their business model, but a resource. They don't contribute to the development of said software upstream. And they sell hardware as their main business, not software. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> David Kastrup wrote: >> [...] >>> > Bundling BSD and alike licensed code is, for example, the business >>> > model of Apple Computer, Inc. (OS X and Darwin). >>> >>> No. >> >> http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/x11/ >> http://darwinsource.opendarwin.org/10.4.6.x86/ > > Again: the BSD stuff is not their business model, but a resource. > They don't contribute to the development of said software upstream. > And they sell hardware as their main business, not software. Well, strike that last sentence. While they don't sell the software separately, the software _is_ what mainly constitutes "Apple", and the hardware is basically used as a fat and stylish dongle. But the particular software that constitutes what "Apple" is all about is not and never has been made open by them. The BSD licensed stuff is not their business model. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: what is the current status of GPL v3
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > Why don't you simply check it yourself. There's tons of separate >> > and independent bodies of code in the Linux kernel and they are >> > even under different licenses. >> >> Does not make them independent. For that reason, no >> GPL-incompatible parts are admitted into the kernel. > > GPL-(in)compatiblity is a fiction. Tell that to the courts. > Please bare in your mind that In fact, the GPL itself > rejects any automatic aggregation of software copyrights under the > GPL simply because one program licensed under the GPL is distributed > together with another program that is not licensed under the GPL: > "In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the > Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a > volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other > work under the scope of this License. > http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_FSF_37.pdf We all know that you can quote. Too bad you don't understand what you quote. "mere aggregation of another work not based on the program" is hardly fitting for individual source files of the kernel. If there was a common driver format or API for Linux and other system, there would be some possibility for aggregation of independent material. As it is, there is little opportunity for such: binary driver interfaces are not fixed with Linux. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: what is the current status of GPL v3
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >These are improved versions of programs originally from BSD. > > > And this means that GNU inetutils cannot be part of the GNU system? > Amazing. Indeed, another strawmen. Of course a compilation consists of parts. Do you still have a clue what you are arguing about? >> Emacs was to a significant degreed developed by third parties, I >> guess it too isn't part of the GNU system. > >Is is a component of a compilation, but as such is a single entity >(with very few exceptions (c) FSF due to the practice of copyright >assignments) and has been developed mostly as a single entity. >However, there are subsystems (like calc) which have historically >been distributed as separate entities. So parts of Emacs can be >considered aggregated. There is no necessity for drawing a line >here, however, since copyright and license for the components in >distribution rest with FSF and the GPL. > > Copyright doesn't state if something is or isn't part of a operating > system. You were arguing against GNU systems being compilations. And that's an issue defined by copyright law. >> Nor is GCC, which is being developed by RedHat, and then we have >> the GNU C library which also is being developed by RedHat. > >It sure is part of any GNU system, in the form of an aggregation >(in the case of GCC). The C library, however, is linked with the >executables, and that exceeds mere aggregation. The C library, >however, is licensed under the LGPL. > > The license and copyright have nothing to do with this. The GNU C > Library is part of the GNU system, doesn't matter if you do not like > it or not. Another straw man. Of course, a compilation has parts, and the C library was not a topic of discussion, anyway. >Looks like you again confused what this thread is supposed to be >about. You objected against GNU systems being a compilation, and >that concerns its copyright situation and nothing else. > > No, it doesn't. You can have a single entity with several copyright > holders. Like Linux, or is Linux also a compilation according to > you? But the "operating system" is not a single entity. You can take, for example, the ftp client and compile and use it under a different operating system. That's what the autoconf stuff is all about: portability. And something which is portable and maintainable as a separate entity is a component of a compilation. >> GCC isn't fully copyrighted by the FSF, neither are many >> projects, yet they are GNU projects, then there are non-GNU >> projects which are part of the GNU system. > >Which, for that reason, is mostly to be considered a compilation >with regard to the copyright situation. > > Nope, it isn't. Please read up on what a compilation is, and please > stop confusing compilations with the GNU system. Next thing we know > is that OpenBSD isn't _really_ a single entity; a operating system, > but a compilation of totally disjoint tools that Theo thought was nice > to publish. With regard to copyright law, of course it is a compilation. For example, it comes with gcc, without this putting the whole of OpenBSD under the GPL. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) writes: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> The anticompetitive nature of the GNU GPL is no-brainer. > >>That must explain why there is _lots_ of competition in the Linux >>market. > > Surely the claim must be that it is damaging to competition in the > market for operating systems as a whole, rather than within the > Linux market itself? But the Linux market is not separate from the operating systems market. Linux is damaging to _competitors_ in the market for operating systems, because it opens wide the possibilities for _competition_. But if those competitors find that the presence of Linux makes their own products less attractive, they are free to revert to selling Linux themselves and continue competing. And indeed, it appears that Sun is going that route right now. HP did this earlier on. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) writes: >> >> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> >>> The anticompetitive nature of the GNU GPL is no-brainer. >> > >> >>That must explain why there is _lots_ of competition in the Linux >> >>market. >> > >> > Surely the claim must be that it is damaging to competition in the >> > market for operating systems as a whole, rather than within the >> > Linux market itself? >> >> But the Linux market is not separate from the operating systems >> market. Linux is damaging to _competitors_ in the market for >> operating systems, because it opens wide the possibilities for >> _competition_. > > And once again you conflate the market under attack by the copyleft > conspiracy with its ancillary markets. Nothing but the "ancillary market" is relevant here. We are talking about the business of selling operating systems, not of selling labor. Wallace is free to sell his labor to whatever operating system vendor wants to buy it. But that's not what he wants. He purports to want to sell operating system copies himself, and exactly that is what you call "ancillary market". > Is it really that hard to grasp that those ancillary markets will > function in exactly the same way (if not better) when copyleft is > outlawed and Linux becomes non- copyleft free software? You can't outlaw copyleft since it is simply a normal use of a creator's copyright. And those ancillary markets work better with copyleft: exactly that is the problem for Wallace: he can't sell his personal reinvention of the wheel because the market already has the means to supply better ones on a sustainable basis. >> But if those competitors find that the presence of Linux makes >> their own products less attractive, they are free to revert to >> selling Linux themselves > > Yeah, and "In time, due to its recursive nature, the GPL’s pool of > price fixed intellectual property can grow to utterly destroy a > targeted market." True. Nonsense. The market is thriving with hundreds of competitors and everybody free to join. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: what is the current status of GPL v3
Alan Mackenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Thu, 18 May 2006 12:48:28 +0200: > >>>There is a difference between assembling a system, and developing >>>its components. The FSF certainly does not develop X11. > >>> Neither does the FSF develop FTP, SMTP, Gopher, HTTP, I fail >>> to see what protocols have to do with this. > >> The topic is the programs and libraries constituting a GNU system. And >> those are to a significant degree developed by third parties and used >> as components in a compilation. > > THIRD parties? OK, the FSF is one party, so who's the second party? X.org is the same as the FSF? Not last time I looked. > Hey, isn't free software all just one big party? Not a good stance, since then the fight for leadership begins. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> > And once again you conflate the market under attack by the copyleft >> > conspiracy with its ancillary markets. >> >> Nothing but the "ancillary market" is relevant here. > > Only to you and other GNUtians. Wallace's case is not about ancillary > markets. > >> We are talking >> about the business of selling operating systems, not of selling labor. > > Wallace is talking about selling Intellectual Property. > >> Wallace is free to sell his labor to whatever operating system vendor >> wants to buy it. > > Sure he is free. But he wants to become a vendor of his SciBSD > operating system and use some IP value based business model. "IP value based business model" is waffling about things. Just what does he want to sell to whom? Anyway, so he finds that thereis already a market of operating systems where hundreds of people compete by virtue of a cooperative business model, and he wants to have both cooperation and competition outlawed in order to have a chance of marketing an inferior product which does not yet exist? Why should the court feel they have to accommodate his wishes for anticompetitive measures? >> But that's not what he wants. He purports to want to sell >> operating system copies himself, and exactly that is what you call >> "ancillary market". > > You again attempt to conflate. Think of it this way: Red Hat doesn't > sell operating system copies. Why should I? That's just what they do, and it is one of their main sources of income. Then they have a number of kernel and compiler developers in their portfolio producing "intellectual property", and since that enables them to be a competent business partner, people buy at RedHat. If they stop being a competent business partner, people are free to go elsewhere for their business, both for operating system copies and support. No vendor lockin. That is being competitive. And Wallace wants to have competition removed in order to be able to market an inferior product. >> > Is it really that hard to grasp that those ancillary markets will >> > function in exactly the same way (if not better) when copyleft is >> > outlawed and Linux becomes non- copyleft free software? >> >> You can't outlaw copyleft since it is simply a normal use of a >> creator's copyright. > > It's far from normal. It is completely within the scope of the law. In fact, if you look at a current Windows XP EULA where Microsoft reserves the right to remotely destroy your computer without recompensation in the course of making a mistake while crippling its software post-purchase (in order to stop you from exercising your consumer rights with a legally acquired copy of music or software, for example), then I call _that_ far from normal. Very, very far from normal. A license permitting you sharing code under conditions is rather ordinary. It is halfway between a permission to share without conditions, and this (public domain) is the penultimate state of _all_ copyrightable material, even though the currently valid time durations until this happens are ridiculous, particularly when concerning software. >> And those ancillary markets work better with copyleft: exactly that >> is the problem for Wallace: he can't sell his personal reinvention >> of the wheel because the market already has the means to supply >> better ones on a sustainable basis. > > Nonsense. Wallace case is not about ancillary markets to begin with, > and his reuse of BSD and alike licensed code in SciBSD is hardly > reinvention. So he wants to capitalize on the work of others without contributing back and sues against people who don't allow their work to get accosted in that manner. So it is not his own IP he wants to sell, but that of others which is freely available to him, and he wants to prohibit people making stuff freely available to others since this ruins his market. Really, it takes a Terekhov to make an even more outrageously stupid case than Wallace tried doing himself. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> "IP value based business model" is waffling about things. Just >> what does he want to sell to whom? > > Suppose he wants to become an Apple (but without music and hardware > business) and compete with other operating systems (not only on > Macs). So what stops him from doing so? >> Anyway, so he finds that thereis already a market of operating systems >> where hundreds of people compete by virtue of a cooperative business > > Bzzt. > >> model, and he wants to have both cooperation and competition outlawed > > Thus far, he wants to have only the GPL outlawed and that would put > the GPL'd code into quasi public domain (the penalty for copyright > misuse) at least in Indiana. Uh what? You mean, if there are terms in Microsoft's EULA to be found which don't jibe with the law, then XP is in the public domain? I find that implausible. Apart from which, there are no terms in the GPL that are against the law. >> in order to have a chance of marketing an inferior product which >> does not yet exist? > > And how do you know that his product is inferior or that it doesn't > exist? If it wasn't inferior, he would not need the better stuff banned. And if it existed, he could point to it. >> Why should the court feel they have to accommodate his wishes for >> anticompetitive measures? > > What "anticompetitive measures"? The court should just apply the > antitrust law to GPL predatory price fixing conspiracy. There is no conspiracy here. A conspiracy is a collusive agreement between parties. The GPL is out in the open, and everybody is free to join the "conspiracy" or not, at his own choice. With your terminology, every free market is a conspiracy of those who choose to participate. > [...] > >> So he wants to capitalize on the work of others without contributing >> back > > Not necessarily without contributing back. Without contributing back. Or else he would not have a problem with the difference between BSD license and GPL. >> and sues against people who don't allow their work to get accosted >> in that manner. > > He's against "contributing back" under unlawful copyleft terms. He is free to ignore the extra rights granted to him by copyleft. >> So it is not his own IP he wants to sell, but that of others which >> is freely available to him, > > Not only to him. The same IP is available to others as well. And your point was? >> and he wants to prohibit people making stuff freely available to >> others since this ruins his market. > > He doesn't want to prohibit people making stuff freely available to > others under lawful non-copyleft terms. Since copyleft forms an additional permission, not a restriction with relation to the standard provisions of copyright law, it can't be unlawful. >> Really, it takes a Terekhov to make an even more outrageously >> stupid case than Wallace tried doing himself. > > dak, dak, dak. > > You're arguing against a caricature of his case, and not his case > itself. Yes, that's exactly what I say. It takes a Terekhov to make an even more outrageously stupid case than Wallace tried doing himself. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > You're arguing against a caricature of his case, and not his case >> > itself. >> >> Yes, that's exactly what I say. > > But that caricature is of your own making. > > Wallace has 30 days to appeal. I hope he will. We'll see. Offer to pay all his legal expenses, for a small share in the sure-fire recompensation he is about to get on appeal. I am sure this will motivate him. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> >> > You're arguing against a caricature of his case, and not his case >> >> > itself. >> >> >> >> Yes, that's exactly what I say. >> > >> > But that caricature is of your own making. >> > >> > Wallace has 30 days to appeal. I hope he will. We'll see. >> >> Offer to pay all his legal expenses, for a small share in the >> sure-fire recompensation he is about to get on appeal. I am sure this >> will motivate him. > > He seems to be motivated enough without any offers from me. [Appeal claim] This is going to be cute. The problem with an appeal is that Wallace does not merely have to get it right this time: he has to prove that he got it right last time around, and the court just failed to notice. It would take considerable skill to make a case that has a chance to even survive into trial. But proving that the previous attempt already was sufficient would seem like an impossibly hard problem even for somebody with a legal clue. The downside, of course, is that Wallace's doomed attempts don't actually say anything about the legal implications of the GPL either which way. They merely tell something about Wallace himself. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> This is going to be cute. The problem with an appeal is that Wallace >> does not merely have to get it right this time: he has to prove that >> he got it right last time around, and the court just failed to notice. > > Appellate court will review district court's grant of motion to dismiss > de novo, accepting all the allegations in Wallace's complaint as true > and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Wallace. > > I'm pretty sure that dismissal "based on failure to allege an > anticompetitive effect" will be reversed because "predatory pricing > has the requisite anticompetitive effect" (ARCO). Well, first predatory pricing _as_ _defined_ would have to be shown. One fallacy here is that "predatory pricing" requires "pricing" in the first place, and the parties _participating_ in GPLed software development are not free to set the "price for intellectual property": this is fixed by the upstream license. Adhering to license terms is not prohibited and does not form a conspiracy, or all law-abiding citizens would be in a conspiracy. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > David Kastrup wrote: >> > [...] >> >> This is going to be cute. The problem with an appeal is that Wallace >> >> does not merely have to get it right this time: he has to prove that >> >> he got it right last time around, and the court just failed to notice. >> > >> > Appellate court will review district court's grant of motion to dismiss >> > de novo, accepting all the allegations in Wallace's complaint as true >> > and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Wallace. >> > >> > I'm pretty sure that dismissal "based on failure to allege an >> > anticompetitive effect" will be reversed because "predatory pricing >> > has the requisite anticompetitive effect" (ARCO). >> >> Well, first predatory pricing _as_ _defined_ would have to be shown. ... > > Your views re merits of Wallace's allegations are beside the point > under 12(b)(6) standard. Tell that to the judges. > As for proof, "A plaintiff must prove (1) that the prices complained > of are below an appropriate measure of its rival's costs This will be hard to do, considering that RedHat is profitable in its operating system business and IBM has recouped its investment into Linux several times already. > and (2) that the competitor had a reasonable prospect of recouping > its investment in below cost prices." Basically, the standard demands proving that the prices must be both below cost as well as profitable. This could be tricky even for a person less inept than Wallace. > And Wallace already addressed both elements in his reply brief. Tell that to the judges. Your fantasies don't fly in the courts. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> GNUtian dak is getting desperate.
Your smokescreen attempts would probably appear less ridiculous if you
bothered giving some reason for them, however stupid.
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > Your views re merits of Wallace's allegations are beside the point
>> > under 12(b)(6) standard.
>>
>> Tell that to the judges.
>
> Bzzt.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/b81437831e209017
> ("not the merits")
Terekhov quoting Terekhov quoting Terekhov. The most amusing part in
this series of self-quotes is probably:
> And Judge Tinder clearly erred.
> Hopefully Judge Young will do better.
Judge Young also erred.
You'll be sure to augment this list in future.
> [...]
>> > and (2) that the competitor had a reasonable prospect of recouping
>> > its investment in below cost prices."
>>
>> Basically, the standard demands proving that the prices must be both
>> below cost as well as profitable.
>
> Bzzt. GNU logic.
Since you conveniently cut out (1), you apparently realize that you
need to butcher the premise in order to make fun of the conclusion.
So you agree and just don't want to be seen admitting it.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Alexander Terekhov writes: >> As for proof, "A plaintiff must prove (1) that the prices complained >> of are below an appropriate measure of its rival's costs > > The marginal cost of production of copies of Linux is at most the cost of > pressing a DVD. The marginal cost of granting a GPL license is zero. > >> and (2) that the competitor had a reasonable prospect of recouping >> its investment in below cost prices." > > David Kastrup wrote: >> Basically, the standard demands proving that the prices must be both >> below cost as well as profitable. > > What they mean is that the plaintiff must prove that if the defendant > succeeded in driving him out of business with predatory pricing he would > subsequently be able to recoup the money he lost selling below cost by > selling at the elevated price he would be able to demand as a result of > having disposed of his competitor. That is not the only option for profiting from a crashing market. You can buy out your competitor at cheap prices, for example. You can get rid of him in another market segment where he is providing too much competition. And the investment need not be large: you can do this by announcing vaporware and thus freeze the customers' willingness to pay current market prices. The problem is that the FSF is a registered charity and not even able to turn a profit. Another is that it is not operating at a loss even though it does nothing except distributing and organizing free software. And RedHat turns profits in its core business of selling operating system copies, with their developers' "intellectual property" on them. > Of course, this is irrelevant because Linux vendors are not selling > below cost by any measure, nor are they competing with Wallace. Oh, one could argue that they are competing with Wallace's purported business plan. If that were the only requirement, Wallace would have a reasonable chance to make it to trial. > On Groklaw there was some speculation that Wallace had a legal > advisor. Perhaps we have found him. It would certainly explain why Terekhov is fawning over rather pointless or downright stupid passages in Wallace's ramblings. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > John Hasler wrote: >> >> Alexander Terekhov writes: >> > As for proof, "A plaintiff must prove (1) that the prices complained >> > of are below an appropriate measure of its rival's costs >> >> The marginal cost of production of copies of Linux is at most the cost of >> pressing a DVD. The marginal cost of granting a GPL license is zero. > > Wallace's case is not about copies (material objects). His case is > about predatory fix pricing of Intellectual Property in violation of > § 1 of the Sherman Act. You can't sell "intellectual property", only access to it, by way of licenses and media. > Note that Wallace's case is an action under § 1 of the Sherman Act. It purports to be such, but fails to meet the requirements. That is why the case has been thrown out. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/b81437831e209017
>> > ("not the merits")
>>
>> Terekhov quoting Terekhov quoting Terekhov.
>
> I'm not the author of "not the merits". Go visit
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.vision
>
> might help.
You are the author of
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
which you quoted in
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
which you quoted in
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Terekhov quoting Terekhov quoting Terekhov, just like I said. That I
have not further followed all of your quoting forks (that would be
quite some task) does not change that.
So it appears like the person requiring medical help would be you.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> You can't sell "intellectual property" > > Bzzt. Copyright (refs to patents in Wallace's case aside for a moment) > is a form of property which, like physical property, can be bought or > sold, inherited, licensed or otherwise transferred, wholly or in part. It can be transferred. Let us assume for the sake of argument that this is what Wallace is talking about. Then he needs to present a business plan where he is _selling_ his copyright to somebody who wants it. Namely his plan has to include being bought out by an investor. He did not present such a plan. And apart from that, RedHat and IBM are not competing with him in selling copyright: if you take a look at the contributions by RedHat, FSF and IBM, you will notice that they _retain_ their copyright and don't give it away. Read the copyright notices. So if "selling intellectual property" is his business plan, the defendants don't even compete in that business. Because they don't sell their intellectual property, but license it. So take your pick. Either the licensing business is, as you claim, "ancillary", in which case the defendants are not in competition in the alleged non-ancillary market of "selling intellectual property", or it isn't, in which case they unfortunately happen to run a profitable business in that area, defying the "predatory" angle. In either case, Wallace's case falls apart because of not meeting the basic criteria for his claims. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ROFL. > > Hey I'm you fan dak. > > ROFL once again. > > Hey dak, fax an appellate amicus. "Tell that to the judges." Why would I need to? Up to now they appear perfectly capable of reading the law. > regards, > alexander. Talk about getting desperate. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I wrote: >> What they mean is that the plaintiff must prove that if the defendant >> succeeded in driving him out of business with predatory pricing he would >> subsequently be able to recoup the money he lost selling below cost by >> selling at the elevated price he would be able to demand as a result of >> having disposed of his competitor. > > David Kastrup writes: >> That is not the only option for profiting from a crashing market. You >> can buy out your competitor at cheap prices, for example. You can get >> rid of him in another market segment where he is providing too much >> competition. And the investment need not be large: you can do this by >> announcing vaporware and thus freeze the customers' willingness to pay >> current market prices. > > You still must show that he could get back what he lost selling > below cost by selling above what would otherwise have been the > market price. That is what is meant by "recouping its investment in > below cost prices." I don't see that they specify the manner of recouping, and I'd consider this too narrow for a reasonably effective definition of "predatory pricing". > David Kastrup writes: >> Oh, one could argue that they are competing with Wallace's >> purported business plan. If that were the only requirement, >> Wallace would have a reasonable chance to make it to trial. > > As far as I know Wallace has never actually offered anything for > sale. US courts do not deal in hypotheticals. Well, nobody claimed that Wallace's suit attempts failed in only one respect. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> Why would I need to? Up to now they appear perfectly capable of >> reading the law. > > Oh really? > > The District Court ruled (emphasis added): > > "Wallace ALLEGES that the Defendants’ “PREDATORY PRICE-fixing scheme > prevents [him] from marketing his own computer operating system as a > competitor.” His complaint fails because it FAILS TO ALLEGE > ANTICOMPETITIVE EFFECTS in an identifiable market. Well, they are perfectly capable of reading, as opposed to you. Wallace can allege all he wants to, but he fails to allege anticompetitive effects in an identifiable market. There is no identifiable market. That's one of the main problems. I pointed out already to you that if he is out for selling his copyright, the defendants are the wrong people to sue since they don't even sell their copyright. And if he is out for licensing copies, there are no anticompetitive effects going on, since the defendants are turning profits in those markets, and thus are competitive. So what in your opinion is the identifiable market? -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup writes: >> I don't see that they specify the manner of recouping, and I'd >> consider this too narrow for a reasonably effective definition of >> "predatory pricing". > > If the defendant would not be likely to raise prices to above what > would otherwise have been the market price, where is the harm to > competition? If the goal is to eliminate a competitor, the damage can also occur in other markets. And with regard to vaporware, killing off the market altogether is also damaging. IIRC, there have been occasions where vaporware killed a product and the market segment ended up empty altogether. I'd consider that still eligible for this sort of suit, since I find it sufficiently similar in spirit. Of course, the precise interpretation lies with the judges, and the precise intent with the lawmakers. With regard to Wallace's suit attempts, it is pretty much the same, as he fails thoroughly without needing to look at such details. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> There is no identifiable market. > > That's not what the Judge said. There is no identifiable market where the defendants would damage Wallace by allegedly predatory pricing, because all markets in question here are either not served by the defendants, not served by Wallace, or are served in a profitable manner. Wallace has failed to identify a market where he would even _allege_ the required conditions (never mind whether his allegations are wrong or right). And that's exactly why Wallace's case has been thrown out. Please specify which market you think this is supposed to be. Up to now you have only vaguely paraded "intellectual property" around. Please specify _exactly_ what Wallace is supposed to be selling in the presumed market. > Yeah, of course, to GNUtians, there's no market in Wallace's case. Well, if you think there _is_ an identifiable market in Wallace's case, be free to actually specify it. Whining is no substitute. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> Please specify which market you think this is supposed to be. Up to >> now you have only vaguely paraded "intellectual property" around. >> Please specify _exactly_ what Wallace is supposed to be selling in the >> presumed market. > > Operating system software. I'll make it simple for you. Suppose > that all GPL'd software evaporates tomorrow. People will need > software in place of it. That's the market. So you are talking about selling licenses and media. Fine. RedHat is operating profitably in that business, so no predatory pricing. And hundreds of other companies have entered this business with GNU/Linux offerings as well, so it would not appear like there is an anticompetitive effect. Rather the contrary: much more competition than Wallace would like. If that's the supposed market, it does not meet the criteria. Because competition has increased, and because the defendants are operating profitably. And Wallace does not even claim anything different. > Got it now? I got nothing that would stand a chance of meeting the criteria of "predatory pricing". But anyway, you'll likely weazle around and be meaning entirely different things in a moment, things that work out equally bad. > And, BTW, what the Judge said is "Because he [Wallace] has not > identified an anticompetitive effect, Wallace has failed to allege a > cognizable antitrust injury." and he dismissed for that reason. Well, that's pretty much the same as failing to allege a market where an anticompetitive effect would be visible. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > David Kastrup wrote: >> > [...] >> >> Please specify which market you think this is supposed to be. Up to >> >> now you have only vaguely paraded "intellectual property" around. >> >> Please specify _exactly_ what Wallace is supposed to be selling in the >> >> presumed market. >> > >> > Operating system software. I'll make it simple for you. Suppose >> > that all GPL'd software evaporates tomorrow. People will need >> > software in place of it. That's the market. >> >> So you are talking about selling licenses and media. Fine. RedHat is >> operating profitably in that business, so no predatory pricing. > > Red Hat recoups losses from GPL conspiracy (with other > co-conspirators in predatory priced IP that is meant to kill > competition) by higher prices of their subscription service > contracts. Reality check. http://www.redhat.com/info/earnings/earnings_4q2006_tables.html> By far the largest revenue comes from subscriptions to software. Training and services, in contrast, are dwarved by a factor of about 4. There are no "losses from GPL conspiracy". RedHat sells its media at a profit. Whether the sales channel is most profitable on subscriptions or on individual sales, is pretty irrelevant. For your information, "loss" in an identifiable market segment means "cost minus profits". And Wallace, like you, has failed to specify a defined market segment where RedHat would be making losses, let alone permanent losses. Apart from that, RedHat does not _set_ the price for licensing, anyway. It just follows the license conditions and has no choice there where "conspiracy" code, namely that copyrighted by independent parties, is involved. Where they _do_ have a choice is when they are putting together compilations where parts are (C) RedHat. And RedHat has a history of routing out non-free components drastically (GNOME instead of KDE/Qt at a time when the latter was non-free still was one of the more drastic measures) and of putting technology like the RPM stuff under the GPL. And guess what, this is what made people turn to RedHat to such a degree that RedHat made the profits it does now. The customers are seemingly actively involved in this "conspiracy", too. Does not seem to be very secret. And RedHat fails to make losses with its predatory pricing that it would need to recoup elsewhere. > "A plaintiff must prove (1) that the prices complained of are below > an appropriate measure of its rival's costs and (2) that the > competitor had a reasonable prospect of recouping its investment in > below cost prices." > > Wallace is a sure winner on the merits as well, AFAICS. As sure as the sky is pink. And "as far as you can see" is not particularly impressive as long as you keep digging yourself into holes. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> There are no "losses from GPL conspiracy". RedHat sells its media at >> a profit. > > dak. dak. dak. > > Why don't you go to https://www.redhat.com/apps/commerce/ and check > yourself what they are selling. IIRC, media kits are optional and > free (as in free beer, not GNU "freedom"). They sell only contracts > and, pursuant to the GPL, they don't charge anything for GPL'd IP. Look, you need to decide what the market is. One moment you decide that it's "operating system images" (more or less), the next moment you are again back at "GPL'd IP", and "IP" would be the copyright, not the software. If even a legal eagle like you gets confused all the time, you can't blame the judges not to be able to follow this kind of reasoning. > QED. Uh, why don't you check that page yourself? Service contracts cost _extra_. The cheapest version you can get ($179) has only - 30 Days Installation and Basic Configuration Phone Support That's pretty standard for operating system sales. You can have your products shipped, or you can download them. That's pretty standard for software sales, too. So the problem you seem to be having is that _some_ kind of images can be downloaded without support. This is not valuing the _IP_ at zero (since you can't get the copyright transferred in that manner), but is valuing the media at zero. And this downloadability makes the sales profitable in the _same_ market segment, namely operating system images. So there is no "recouping" going on. If it were, any kind of advertising would be priced predatorily, since it carries associated costs which are then "recouped" in the market. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) writes: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Red Hat recoups losses from GPL conspiracy (with other co-conspirators >>in predatory priced IP that is meant to kill competition) by higher >>prices of their subscription service contracts. > >>"A plaintiff must prove (1) that the prices complained of are below an >>appropriate measure of its rival's costs > > Red Hat's competitors can, like Red Hat, obtain the GNU and Linux > software at no cost, so it's hard to see in what way their prices are > below their rivals' costs. It is also somewhat hard to see what meaning the term "co-conspirators" is supposed to carry if anybody can join the "conspiracy" without previous notice while the "conspiracy" is entirely in the open. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Richard Tobin wrote: >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >Red Hat recoups losses from GPL conspiracy (with other >> >co-conspirators in predatory priced IP that is meant to kill >> >competition) by higher prices of their subscription service >> >contracts. >> >> >"A plaintiff must prove (1) that the prices complained of are >> >below an appropriate measure of its rival's costs >> >> Red Hat's competitors can, like Red Hat, obtain the GNU and Linux >> software at no cost, so it's hard to see in what way their prices >> are below their rivals' costs. > > So you invite Red Hat's competitors in operating system software IP > to give up competing and join predatory price fixing GPL conspiracy > in IP like, say, Novell? Novell has quite different prices from RedHat. So the price fixing does not seem to be very effective. To which you will repeat your mantra that the price fixing is for the "IP", not individual copies, glossing over the fact that all the parties _retain_ their copyright and only sell copies. So please state the "IP" which you claim is price-fixed at zero. It isn't the copyright, because the copyright isn't sold. And it isn't the copies because those are sold at widely different prices. > To quote Supremes (somewhat relevant): Totally and completely irrelevant. It talks about the _frequency_ of predatory pricing being irrelevant in litigating it. But the frequency of GPL use was never in debate. > If you mean competition in ancillary markets (NOT joining predatory > price fixing GPL conspiracy in IP), that's beside the point because > Wallace's case is not about ancillary markets. So what market is Wallace's case about according to you? "IP" is not a legal term. Please state the market. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> Novell has quite different prices from RedHat. So the price fixing >> does not seem to be very effective. > > The price of GPL'd IP (apart from outright transfers of copyrights) > pooled and cross licensed by Red Hat and Novell is fixed at zero > (pursuant to the GPL)... You failed to specify what the "IP" is that you are talking about. It isn't copyright, seemingly (as that is not being sold). So what is it? -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> "IP" is not a legal term. > > Yeah. > > http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/ms-vs-eu/article-20060421.en.html > > > > For one thing, "intellectual property" is not a legal term that exists, > as such, anywhere in the world. > > > > How come that > > http://user.cs.tu-berlin.de/~tron/opensource/node5.html > > says Would you claim that this is the wording of a law? -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL licenced Java application using non GPL jars (libraries)
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I advise you to avoid following any advice Alexander Terekhov gives > you, Ben, since his views do not seem to be supported by reality, > but instead by self-quoting (up to three levels deep!) I don't think he really has a hard limit there. > and insults. Well, there are bad-mannered people with a clue, too, so that is not a problem per se. It is just that Terekhov uses insults whenever he runs out of tenable arguments, which is pretty much always. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > David Kastrup wrote: >> > [...] >> >> "IP" is not a legal term. >> > >> > Yeah. >> > >> > http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/ms-vs-eu/article-20060421.en.html >> > >> > >> > >> > For one thing, "intellectual property" is not a legal term that exists, >> > as such, anywhere in the world. >> > >> > >> > >> > How come that >> > >> > http://user.cs.tu-berlin.de/~tron/opensource/node5.html >> > >> > says >> >> Would you claim that this is the wording of a law? > > Why don't you google "No. 100-506, 102 Stat. 2538", for example? Why should I? It won't explain what "IP" you think is being sold at cost zero. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL licenced Java application using non GPL jars (libraries)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > John Hasler wrote: > [...] >> If the program is entirely of your authorship you can distribute it under >> any terms you wish. However, if you don't add exceptions no one will be >> able to redistribute it. > > Sez GNUtian Hasler. Of course they can redistribute it. 17 USC 109, to > begin with. That concerns the transfer of particular acquired copies, not distribution involving the creation of additional copies. In short: you are babbling again, and people are well-advised not to listen to you. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL licenced Java application using non GPL jars (libraries)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > John Hasler wrote: >> > [...] >> >> If the program is entirely of your authorship you can distribute it under >> >> any terms you wish. However, if you don't add exceptions no one will be >> >> able to redistribute it. >> > >> > Sez GNUtian Hasler. Of course they can redistribute it. 17 USC 109, to >> > begin with. >> >> That concerns the transfer of particular acquired copies, not >> distribution involving the creation of additional copies. > > Legally speaking, "distribution" doesn't involve creation of additional > copies at all. And 17 USC 109 is about particular copies "lawfully made", > not "acquired". All downloaded copies of publicly available GPL'd works > are lawfully made. As long as you have permission. The GPL is such a permission, but it comes with strings attached. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL licenced Java application using non GPL jars (libraries)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: > [...] >> The source code is not linked with the libraries. The combination of >> the (compiled) source code and whatever library it uses occurs in the >> system running the program. >> >> As it is extremely difficult to distribute a running program, this >> clause would pertain to linked programs that contain both a >> transformation of the source code (the object) and all or part of the >> libraries (where we could argue ad nauseam whether the instructions > > Ha. [...] > > > One of the questions with the GPL is about how tightly you may link > GPL code with non-GPL code, for example, when you compile a GPL program > and it uses other code in a software library. Have you done anything > to define how tightly GPL code may be linked with non-GPL code? Under > what circumstances is that permitted and not permitted? > > Moglen: We have made one clarification, as we see it, of what we > believe was always the rule. We reasserted that code dynamically linked > to GPL code--which the GPL code is intended to require, not merely > optionally incorporate--is part of the source code of the work under > the GPL and must be released. > > > > So much about "the GPL rejects any automatic aggregation of software > copyrights" the FSF been telling to the Judge in court of law. To > quote day5done, Linking is not aggregation. Of course you knew that. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Again. Who'd guess.... ;)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: >> >> http://opensource.sys-con.com/read/224798.htm >> >> The second decision came from a different judge in the Southern >> District of Indiana and, like the first judge and the FSF >> complaint, he found that Wallace didn't properly state a claim. >> He said he accepted the allegations as true but that Wallace >> didn't allege anticompetitive effects in an identifiable market > > The District Court is clearly in error. Predatory pricing has the > requisite anticompetitive effect (ARCO). The Appellate Court will > correct the district court's mistake. Oh, I am pretty sure the appelate court will be "clearly in error", too. And whatever other courts Wallace chooses to pester with his inability to make a case. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL licenced Java application using non GPL jars (libraries)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> > Moglen: We have made one clarification, as we see it, of what we >> > believe was always the rule. We reasserted that code dynamically linked >> > to GPL code--which the GPL code is intended to require, not merely >> > optionally incorporate--is part of the source code of the work under >> > the GPL and must be released. >> > >> > >> > >> > So much about "the GPL rejects any automatic aggregation of software >> > copyrights" the FSF been telling to the Judge in court of law. To >> > quote day5done, >> >> Linking is not aggregation. > > Static linking certainly is. Only in Terekhov-Lala-land. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL licenced Java application using non GPL jars (libraries)
Ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The risk lies in that the GPL may be make GPL the libraries my code > uses - that are under different licences. > This would mean that any recipient of my GPL code could also assume > those associated libraries are GPL (when clearly they may not be) This is nonsense. The GPL is not infectuous and does not change the licenses of anything it comes in contact with. It says that you have to license derived code under the GPL or not distribute at all. That does not mean that if you distribute derived code not under the GPL that this makes the code come under the GPL. It means that you are in breach of the GPL. If you are the author of the GPLed code yourself, nobody can sue you for that. If you break the license of the other code, others can sue you for it. If you don't intend to sue anybody for linking with the other code, then you should explicitly state that you allow such linking with your library. That will mean that your code can't becombined with GPLed code from other parties without such an exception. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL licenced Java application using non GPL jars (libraries)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> >> Linking is not aggregation. >> > >> > Static linking certainly is. >> >> Only in Terekhov-Lala-land. > > I gather that by virtue of some truly exciting invention static > linking doesn't aggregate in the GNU Republic. I want the patent > rights, dak! It is not mere aggregation and never was. There is also address resolution being done, which is the whole point of linking. I'd imagine you'd want the patent rights for that, as they would be worth a _lot_ of money. Unfortunately, there is plenty of prior art. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL licenced Java application using non GPL jars (libraries)
Benjamin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Alex raises an interesting point, is our licence with clause still > compatible with other programs/libraries that use an unmodified GPL > licence (modification in this sense being any "overridden" conflicts > as per John Hasler's definition)? No. You can't make an unmodified GPL license compatible to other licenses by including some fake module with modified GPL license. While your module is not fake, the situation with regard to the licenses is the same. As long as your "GPLed with exception" software is _only_ combined with GPLed software, this would be ok. As soon as somebody makes use of the exception, however, the combination with GPLed software is no longer distributable as whole. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL licenced Java application using non GPL jars (libraries)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> While your module is not fake, the situation with regard to the >> licenses is the same. As long as your "GPLed with exception" software >> is _only_ combined with GPLed software, this would be ok. > > GNU logic. Under FSF's own interpretation, that modified "GPL with > exception" says that combined work as whole falls under "the terms > of this License", Uh, no it doesn't. Nothing _ever_ "falls" under the GPL unless it is explicitly placed there, namely licensed under the GPL by the copyright holder. The GPL is not an infectious disease. You can't legally redistribute the results without effectively placing other parts under the GPL (or strictly less restraining terms, this is what "GPL compatibility" is about), but that means if you do distribute with conflicting licenses, that you are in violation of the GPL, not that the GPL magically jumps and covers the parts which are not licensed under GPL or compatible. > "this License" being the modified "GPL with exception", and NOT a > combination of original GPL terms + modified GPL terms. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL licenced Java application using non GPL jars (libraries)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > David Kastrup wrote: >> > [...] >> >> While your module is not fake, the situation with regard to the >> >> licenses is the same. As long as your "GPLed with exception" software >> >> is _only_ combined with GPLed software, this would be ok. >> > >> > GNU logic. Under FSF's own interpretation, that modified "GPL with >> > exception" says that combined work as whole falls under "the terms >> > of this License", >> >> Uh, no it doesn't. Nothing _ever_ "falls" under the GPL unless it is > > I meant (the FSF interpretation of): > > "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in > whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any > part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third > parties under the terms of this License." "must cause" is the duty of the person redistributing. It does not happen automatically. >> explicitly placed there, namely licensed under the GPL by the >> copyright holder. The GPL is not an infectious disease. You can't >> legally redistribute the results without effectively placing other >> parts under the GPL (or strictly less restraining terms, this is what > > The GPL says "under the terms of this License." It says nothing about > "strictly less restraining terms" whatever that means. "licensed as a whole". That means the whole has to be under the terms of the GPL, namely meeting all conditions concerning redistribution as defined by the GPL. Identifiable parts can have additional permissions placed on them by the copyright holder: this is not prohibited by the GPL, only additional restrictions concerning the collective work as a whole: the GPL does not give permission to redistribute such a combined work including GPLed portions. > Stop bullshiting, dak. That's your specialty. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL licenced Java application using non GPL jars (libraries)
[Superseded, see below] Benjamin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That seems to make sense. > > Would this mean I must also provide GPL licenced alternatives for > those people who wish to adhere to just GPL side of the licencing or > can I leave this up to them to implement (and of course remove the > references imports-includes in the code)? The metric in generally is that a GPL-compatible library is actually available fitting the same API. Whether it is implemented by you or a third party is irrelevant, but it must not be purely hypothetical. [Superseded: strictly speaking, GPL compatibility is not required. If there are different sources implementing the same API, such that it becomes the user's choice which library to pick, then the work as a whole does not logically include a library that is still to be picked by the user.] I think this has been the situation with the readline library (which is under the GPL). Somebody created some stubs that provided basically the same interface, and this made software not derivative on readline unless explicitly linked with it. Of course it's not really in the spirit of the GNU project to do such trickery for the sake of accommodating proprietary products, but that seems to be the legal borderline where at least the FSF sees no reasonable chance in pursuing stuff legally. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL licenced Java application using non GPL jars (libraries)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> Uh, the GPL also has the backing of IBM. > > Yeah. Apart from contributing to just few GPL'd projects for strategic > reasons, it is no secret that IBM treats [L]GPL'd code like a kind of > toxic waste. The general rule is "seek for alternative". The preferred > license for IBM's own open source is the CPL. Reality check: IBM invested billions into Linux, including donating JFS and mainframe ports. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL licenced Java application using non GPL jars (libraries)
Benjamin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Currently we use interfaces (i.e. stubs) where the non GPL code is > used so this is possible (however no GPL alternative code exists and > the interfaces would need to be implemented by the deriving code > developers, this should be reasonably trivial as it is database access > and logging). > > The problem lies that one of the future project goals will make heavy > use of Spring (Apache licensed) libraries in changing the foundations > of the software. Spring is needed to save a *huge* amount of > refactoring and implementation work. (Spring is a framework of > libraries). > > If what you say below is true regarding stubs and pure GPL > alternatives then to cause the least amount of pain and > inconvenience for the developers of the project the GPL would have > to be avoided. I see no reason why the design of the software should > change to accommodate the licence (i.e. providing interfaces, making > the integral foundation of the code modular - all extra work, > especially as Spring is huge), or why the wheel should be reinvented > when technically Spring is also free and open source. Looks like you did not understand what I had been saying. As the author of the stuff to be licensed, you are free to choose the GPL with exceptions, accommodating whatever additional libraries you like. However, this will mean that as long as your project as a whole requires GPL-incompatible libraries, that GPLed code without such an exception can't be taken from elsewhere and integrated into your project. But this will be the case regardless of how you license your software, so it does not speak against GPL with exception per se. > Again I'm on the fence with GPL and CPL. I like the assurances of > GPL, but its ambiguity is making me favour the CPL. The GPL is not ambiguous merely because Alexander Terekhov is trolling this newsgroup. > I guess at the end of the day all I have to go on is the mostly pro > GPL answers on here, (no answer yet from GNU) or the assurances of > the CPL which has the backing of IBM. Uh, the GPL also has the backing of IBM. It's substantial for their counterarguments in their current multi-million dollar lawsuit with SCO. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL libraries and linking
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> 1. http://kororaa.org/index.php?entry=entry060521-200059 > > Stallman should be sued for damages to the global environment and lost > productivity. Amount of time, energy, bandwidth, and other resources > spent on trying to make sense of his idiotic literary work is > horrifying. If you find a law for that, I'll bill you. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: New Software License idea: "The Freedom License."
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If adding a useful feature breaks some standard, break the standard, > standards are not laws that have to be followed unconditionally. > > > Yes, I know you're a troll, but today I'm quite bored so this is > your food for the weekend. You've fallen for him, by the way. He has not shown that make breaks any standard. Yes, it behaves differently from Unix' make, but not every quirk of Unix make has been standardized. Thank God, I have to say: I have worked with Unix make before Linux even existed (though GNU to some amount), and it was an absolute _crock_ what it did with regard to stuff that was not strictly standardized. I pray that they have made its behavior more regular in the mean time, but at that time it was basically trial and error to get the bugs do what one wanted. And when you finally managed, people looked flabbergasted and said: "this nonsense does something useful"? -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL ...
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Nick Kew wrote: >> >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/30/nokia_goes_open_source/ >> >> Nokia is to open its browser engine under a BSD license. >> >> The browser engine is developed with apple and based on Safari. >> Which is in turn based on khtml/konqueror. Which is KDE, >> which is GPL. So that's a derivative of GPL software appearing >> under a BSD license, or so it would appear. >> >> Now, presumably Apple negotiated non-GPL terms with the KDE folks >> for their use of the code in Safari. Did those terms include >> permission to open-source a derived product under non-GPL terms? >> If so, it would appear to have effectively killed copyleft on >> this particular software. > > > > Read up something on the AFC test. And kindly piss off with your > GNUish/SCOish "based on" derivative theories in the meantime. Well, this is _gnu_.misc.discuss as well as uk.comp.os.linux, and actual inclusion of lines of code is not a "derivative theory" particular to the GNU project. It's the standard for copyright pretty much worldwide. Now SCO is a different matter: they try pulling some sort of contractual violation theory based on lines they don't even specify. Now that's walking on thin air. What code lines Nokia's browser is actually using will remain to be seen. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL ...
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You too, dak, please kindly piss off.
Why should a GNU maintainer not discuss miscellaneous things on
gnu.misc.discuss? Just because you are a spoilt brat craving
undivided attention for your wild theories ("isn't he adorable when he
mimics a lawyer?"), does not mean that one needs to accommodate your
desires in a forum intended for discussion among adults.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Looking for an open source license..
"Amanjit Gill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > - I really like the GNU GPL and LGPL for software that corresponds > to infrastructure (i.e. things that should be provided on any > system, and must be "free" and interoperatable because it is so easy > for software to be incompatible (you only need to change one byte). That is the wrong reason to like the GPL/LGPL, since both of them guarantee the freedom to change the code. > - I pretty much dislike the GPL (and LGPL because of the clause that > you can "relicense" the work under the GPL) for everything else, > i.e. Applications. Your likings and dislikings are somewhat peculiar. > - I am looking for a BSD-style license, that is as BSD-compatible as > possible but practically prohibits "relicensing" the work under the > GPL or GPL-compatible licenses. This is nonsense. The whole purpose of BSD-style licenses is to _permit_ relicensing, as proprietary, or as GPL or other. > I basically found bits of code that was initially released under a > BSD license, but somehow years afterwards someone made a GPL version > of that software (same name, but only bugfixes or compiler changes > in the code). I want to prevent this side-effect in an open source > software I am about to write. > > Any Ideas? You need to get your ideas sorted out. The purpose of the BSD license is to _permit_ relicensing to different licenses (including proprietary licenses). The purpose of the GPL is to _not_ permit relicensing to different licenses. If you _don't_ want people to be able to change the associated freedoms in relicensing, you need to use the _GPL_, not a BSD license. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Looking for an open source license..
"Amanjit Gill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup schrieb: > >> That is the wrong reason to like the GPL/LGPL, since both of them >> guarantee the freedom to change the code. > > Yes, but again nobody really changes platform / infrastructure code > _behaviour_ or high level interface _contracts_ on a daily basis. So what? People wanting to promulgate standards tend to use a BSD style license _exactly_ because it can be embedded into stuff with wildly different licenses. That's the deal that makes certain that your example implementation of some interface will get the largest distribution. > You do not gain anything, even as an OS vendor. There is a common > consensus what an mainstream OS should offer from a functional > perspective to the application programmer. I am talking about the > way malloc / free is supposed to work and things like a file system, > process etc (very system specific thigns vary, for example threads). So you are confusing licenses and standards. >> Your likings and dislikings are somewhat peculiar. > And of course, irrelevant. > > > This is nonsense. The whole purpose of BSD-style licenses is to >> _permit_ relicensing, as proprietary, or as GPL or other. > Yes, but as soon as it ends up as being GPL it can never go back to > BSD. These are just the rules of this licensing game. Well, as soon as it ends up in Microsoft, it can never go back to BSD. The whole point of the BSD license is that it may end up as any number of different licenses. >> You need to get your ideas sorted out. The purpose of the BSD >> license > > I just want to release code under the BSD license and ensure that it > stays under the BSD license as long as it is redistributed / > published in source form. But that's not the purpose of the BSD license. The purpose of the BSD license is to permit relicensing under whatever license the recipient may desire, just with a restriction of keeping attributions intact. >> If you _don't_ want people to be able to change the associated >> freedoms in relicensing, you need to use the _GPL_, not a BSD >> license. > > Hmm basically I can choose whatever license _I_ want to, I do not > need to use any of the licenses you mentioned here at all. Sure. But it looks like you want a self-preserving license (in order not to allow relicensing). And the BSD is not a self-preserving license. Both GPL and LGPL are. So you effectively want GPL or LGPL, except that it should not be called that. Sounds like you have an ax to grind rather than a case to make. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Looking for an open source license..
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Amanjit Gill writes: >> Yes, but as soon as it ends up as being GPL it can never go back to BSD. > > No. Code released under the BSD license remains under the BSD > license. The derivative work created by combining BSD and GPL code > may only be distributed under the GPL, but you can pull out the BSD > stuff (assuming you can't find the original BSD code elsewhere) and > redistribute it under the BSD. Says who? A license is something governing the transfer of a physical copy. If I don't have a license to distribute a received copy under the BSD (and the BSD license allows to pass on code without passing on the same distribution rights), then I can't just magically wish to have been granted the same rights as somebody else had been someplace else. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Looking for an open source license..
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I wrote: >> The derivative work created by combining BSD and GPL code may only be >> distributed under the GPL, but you can pull out the BSD stuff (assuming >> you can't find the original BSD code elsewhere) and redistribute it under >> the BSD. > > David Kastrup writes: >> Says who? > > Copyright law. > >> If I don't have a license to distribute a received copy under the BSD >> (and the BSD license allows to pass on code without passing on the same >> distribution rights), then I can't just magically wish to have been >> granted the same rights as somebody else had been someplace else. > > Only the copyright owner has standing to sue for copyright > infringement. If I pull a chunk of BSD-licensed code owned by UC > out of your GPLd work (being careful not to copy anything you wrote) > and distribute it under the BSD what are you going to sue me for? > I've copied nothing of yours. The original copyright owner is still able to sue if his software is used without license. The license he granted to the person using it in the GPLed software (which might have been bought at a high price) does not magically extend to third recipients unless the redistributor chooses to sublicense under BSD. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Looking for an open source license..
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup writes: >> The original copyright owner is still able to sue if his software is used >> without license. The license he granted to the person using it in the >> GPLed software (which might have been bought at a high price) does not >> magically extend to third recipients unless the redistributor chooses to >> sublicense under BSD. > > From the BSD license: > > 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright >notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. > 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright >notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the >documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. > > Thus when you distribute a program that includes BSD-licensed > material (and comply with the license) you are distributing that > material under the terms of the BSD license. But that does not mean that I have to give the recipient the same rights I received unless I wish to do so. And I might have strong inclination not to do so, like if the one giving me the license having mentioned that he will stop doing business with me if I sublicense under the BSD. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Looking for an open source license..
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I wrote: >> From the BSD license: >> >> 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright >>notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. >> 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright >>notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the >>documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. >> >> Thus when you distribute a program that includes BSD-licensed >> material (and comply with the license) you are distributing that >> material under the terms of the BSD license. > > David Kastrup writes: >> But that does not mean that I have to give the recipient the same rights >> I received unless I wish to do so. > > You have nothing to say in the matter. Nonsense. > The recipient gets his rights the same place you did: from the > copyright owner, Nonsense. Copyright concerns tangible copies, and the recipient gets the copy from me. I can't, for example, make a copy of Microsoft Windows and pass it to some customer, and that means that he gets the same rights from Microsoft that I did. > who required you to attach the license to the copy you gave the > recipient. Wrong: "must retain the list of conditions". The trick is that further conditions may be attached. In each case, however, it is the list of conditions _I_ choose under which I license the stuff on. I can even leave off conditions of the original (in violation of the license I got), and the recipient may not reattach them at his whim. He can only bring the case to the attention of the original copyright holder who has standing to bring me into compliance. >> And I might have strong inclination not to do so, like if the one >>giving me the license having mentioned that he will stop doing >>business with me if I sublicense under the BSD. > > Then he would not have used the BSD in the first place. He might have had reasons to do so. Not every business transaction is completely controlled by what you can get away with before court. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: license issue: calling a GPLv2 library
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This is not an issue at all. Except in the GNU Republic. In reality, > linking as such (especially dynamic one) is totally irrelevant > regarding (software) copyright. Ignore that utterly moronic GPL FAQ. > > Your options are: > > 1. Don't distribute the GPL'd stuff and let the users acquire it > separately: > > users have all the rights to use and even adapt (create private > derivatives) of lawfully acquired stuff without "accepting" the > GPL per 17 USC 117; The problem is that if you are selling the user a package that is not operative without linking to GPL code, the user is actually working as your agent completing _your_ part of the deal when creating the combined work. The user _has_ the right to combine and use (as opposed to distribute) code from you with GPLed code if he so desires. But if the product is not operative before linking to the GPLed code, it is pretty clear that the total product, the stuff for which money has been exchanged, includes the GPLed software. Whether the final assembly is done by the seller, or by the user on behalf of the seller as a part of receiving a usable product, is irrelevant. > 2. include it in your distribution package: > > apart from "additional copies" distributed per 17 USC 117 it > even falls under GPL's own "mere aggregation" clause. Linking a library is not "mere aggregation". Cf. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation> -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: license issue: calling a GPLv2 library
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Yeah, and all Windows programs "include" MS Windows. Piss off, dak. You can run Windows programs under Wine if you want to. MS Windows is not required. And the executable of a Windows program never gets linked with Windows: there is no address resolution done, and Windows never becomes part of the executable. Anyway, the Windows development libraries include the call stubs for the system calls, and consequently are accompanied by an appropriate license for their use. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: license issue: calling a GPLv2 library
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >You can run Windows programs under Wine if you want to. MS >Windows is not required. And the executable of a Windows program >never gets linked with Windows: there is no address resolution >done, and Windows never becomes part of the executable. > > Headers might be included that contain MS Windows code. It's not "MS Windows code" but rather the development libraries and headers. And yes, if you purchase said development tools, they are accompanied by an explicit license permitting that. > As for the linking, didn't know that... Thought it worked in a > similar way to shared ELFs. Depends on whether one is talking about system calls or library calls. You are right that on Windows the boundaries are quite more muddled than on other systems. Anyway, the development tools/stubs/headers come with explicit permission to license the resulting works. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: license issue: calling a GPLv2 library
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > Yeah, and all Windows programs "include" MS Windows. Piss off, dak. >> >> You can run Windows programs under Wine if you want to. MS Windows is >> not required. > > Not all Windows programs can run under Wine, idiot. Now tell me how the > copyright law distinguish "system calls" from other calls. Address resolution, and a fixed API. This does not cover the library stubs and headers used for doing the system call, and so the development tools come with appropriate licenses permitting the resulting works to be redistributed. > Better, piss off. It looks like our legal eagle Terekhov is a bit out of temper. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: license issue: calling a GPLv2 library
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote: >> >>You can run Windows programs under Wine if you want to. MS Windows >>is not required. And the executable of a Windows program never >>gets linked with Windows: there is no address resolution done, and >>Windows never becomes part of the executable. >> >> Headers might be included that contain MS Windows code. > > Using whatever interoperabilty stuff doesn't create copyright > violation, stupid. Go study DMCA and all that. You are confused. Taking technical measures for interoperability does not violate the copyright of material licensed to you. It does not magically create a license to stuff that has not been licensed to you. If a program does not even work without a particular library, this is not a case of "interoperability". Interoperability does come into play when there is _more_ than one possible environment to interface with. If you get a program that can be linked to a BSD-licensed library, you are free to take the technical measures required to link it to a GPLed library instead (though you can't redistribute the result under anything but GPL), and this is no skin off the nose of your program provider. But "interoperability" does not come into play where there is only one possible target to link with. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Alexander Terekhov
Wei Mingzhi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Who is this "Alexander Terekhov" guy and why is he always trying to > flood this mailing list (as well as my e-mail box of course ;) ) > with flame baits or trolls? According to him, it is his hobby. To each his own. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: license issue: calling a GPLv2 library
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Wei Mingzhi wrote: > > [... respect freedom ...] > > Possession of property is a mark of the free man. Wrong. It is the mark of a full citizen. Property is defined by laws. Without the provision of the government, there is no such thing as "possession" independent from the individual's ability to hold onto what he considers his property. > And intellectual property is property. Person's freedom is > diminished rather than enlarged by limiting his right to sell his > property in exchange for money (i.e. at a positive price, not "no > charge"). The GPL does not hinder anybody to "sell his property". It just keeps him from licensing the property of others under terms and in contexts that they don't approve. If you don't want that, don't use the GPLed software. Respect the property of people that choose to license it under the GPL. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: license issue: calling a GPLv2 library
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >At the moment I would like to leave my program documentation and >the download archive as it is and avoid the aditional work to read >and implement all legal formalities associated with GLPK. > > Release the program under a GPL compatible license, and you have > solved all legal formalities. Very simple solution. :-) > >In some sense I insist on the freedom of the author to decide >further proceeding. > > The author has no right to restrict a users freedom to use, modify, > improve and distribute software. Oh, he certainly has that right in almost every country. That's what the Berne convention is about. However, he does not have the right to restrict a user's freedom to use, modify, improve and distribute software that its respective author chose to license under the GPL. That's what the GPL is about. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: license issue: calling a GPLv2 library
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> The GPL does not hinder anybody to "sell his property". > > Oh really? Now tell me how "we have made it clear that any patent must > be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all" encourages > selling (licensing at profit) patent IP (selling/licensing of > exclusive rights under copyright aside for a moment), retard. Seems like your attention span has blanked out again. So here is the complete quote again: The GPL does not hinder anybody to "sell his property". It just keeps him from licensing the property of others under terms and in contexts that they don't approve. If you don't want that, don't use the GPLed software. Respect the property of people that choose to license it under the GPL. The GPL does not demand _anything_ as long as you are not using _others'_ property licensed under the GPL. And then _their_ property rights chip in, and they are perfectly allowed to give you license under _their_ conditions. Which in that case is the GPL. Do you get it now, or was this too long for you too grasp again? -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: license issue: calling a GPLv2 library
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> the Berne convention is about. However, he does not have the right to >> restrict a user's freedom to use, modify, improve and distribute >> software that its respective author chose to license under the GPL. >> That's what the GPL is about. > > Now tell me how Gottfried's LiMath_Optimierung released as shareware > is supposed "to restrict a user's freedom to use, modify, improve and > distribute GPL'd software" (GLPK) "that its respective author chose to > license under the GPL". Better, piss off and go read the book. It appears that I am _already_ pissing you off. Anyway: his shareware contains GPLed parts then, and I don't see how the user can modify, improve and distribute those parts while retaining a working executable. Even if shared libraries were used, he can't, for example, choose to change the call interface in order to get better performance. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: license issue: calling a GPLv2 library
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> The author has no right to restrict a users freedom to use, >> modify, improve and distribute software. > >Oh, he certainly has that right in almost every country. That's >what the Berne convention is about. > > Laws and conventions do not make rights. I guess we have to differ here. It is _exactly_ laws and conventions that make rights. If you take away those, you are left with "everything is right what you can get away with". But that does not require spelling out, and thus is not worthwhile in itself. > There are many laws and convenctions that stomp our rights, like the > DMCA and the EUCD. They can't stomp rights that have not been guaranteed by other laws and conventions previously. > He might have the legal laws backing him up, but he does not have > any moral or ethical right to do so. Morals are most certainly based rather directly on conventions. And ethics, while usually derived more indirectly, still depend on conventional thought models. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: license issue: calling a GPLv2 library
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> It appears that I am _already_ pissing you off. Anyway: his >> shareware contains GPLed parts then, and I don't see how the user >> can modify, improve and distribute those parts while retaining a >> working executable. > > Uh. And what does "retaining a working executable" have to do with > users ability to modify, improve and distribute the GPL parts? Make > your own executable employing the modified GPL parts. So you agree that the GPLed parts of the executable can't be modified, improved and distributed? Fine, you get it. >> Even if shared libraries were used, he can't, for example, choose >> to change the call interface in order to get better performance. > > He can change the GLPK call interface and write his own program to > get better performance. Or just pay Gottfried for modified version > of *Gottfried's* program (adaptation under 17 USC 117 aside for a > moment) to use the modified GLPK call interface. Well, the GPL does not sanctify use of the GPLed program that might require extra payment or license in order to modify, improve and distribute GPLed parts _in_ _the_ _context_ they are being used. That's what it is about. > Stop trying to expand the scope of rights under the GPL to infect > works under independent copyright (in this case, Gottfried's > program). This is copyright misuse. As long as Gottfried's program is independent from GPLed works, he won't be affected by the GPL. If it isn't, he needs to heed the license. This is not different with any other license, and is not particular to the GPL. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: license issue: calling a GPLv2 library
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> The GPL does not demand _anything_ as long as you are not using
>> _others'_ property licensed under the GPL. And then _their_ property
>> rights chip in, and they are perfectly allowed to give you license
>
> Except that the GPL blatantly misstates the scope of property rights
> under copyright. It pretends that both 17 USC 109 and 117 are simply
> nonexistent (true in the GNU Republic). Then comes the issue of price
> fixing at predatory ("no charge") level of pooled IP in derivative
> and collective works.
You are babbling. This sort of babbling constitutes so little in way
of a coherent argument that it has already been thrown out of court
(remember Wallace?) in spite of your gleeful appreciation of it.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: license issue: calling a GPLv2 library
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oh dear dak...
>
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > David Kastrup wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> The GPL does not demand _anything_ as long as you are not using
>> >> _others'_ property licensed under the GPL. And then _their_ property
>> >> rights chip in, and they are perfectly allowed to give you license
>> >
>> > Except that the GPL blatantly misstates the scope of property rights
>> > under copyright. It pretends that both 17 USC 109 and 117 are simply
>> > nonexistent (true in the GNU Republic). Then comes the issue of price
>> > fixing at predatory ("no charge") level of pooled IP in derivative
>> > and collective works.
>>
>> You are babbling. This sort of babbling constitutes so little in way
>> of a coherent argument that it has already been thrown out of court
>> (remember Wallace?) in spite of your gleeful appreciation of it.
>
> I'm in good company. http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise2.html
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/a3f76440df6b36c1
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.int-property/msg/4d2438aa5d80f803
>
> And as for Wallace (his other case is under appeal now), to quote
> Hollaar:
>
> (http://groups.google.com/group/misc.int-property/msg/4d2438aa5d80f803)
>
> --
> There has been some mention in this newsgroup in the past about the
> antitrust suit in Indiana regarding the GPL (Daniel Wallace v. Free
> Software Foundation, Inc.).
[...]
Get your attributions right. The above message by Hollaar contains
nothing from what you pretend to quote.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: license issue: calling a GPLv2 library
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Oh dear dak...
>> >
>> > David Kastrup wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > David Kastrup wrote:
>> >> > [...]
>> >> >> The GPL does not demand _anything_ as long as you are not using
>> >> >> _others'_ property licensed under the GPL. And then _their_ property
>> >> >> rights chip in, and they are perfectly allowed to give you license
>> >> >
>> >> > Except that the GPL blatantly misstates the scope of property rights
>> >> > under copyright. It pretends that both 17 USC 109 and 117 are simply
>> >> > nonexistent (true in the GNU Republic). Then comes the issue of price
>> >> > fixing at predatory ("no charge") level of pooled IP in derivative
>> >> > and collective works.
>> >>
>> >> You are babbling. This sort of babbling constitutes so little in way
>> >> of a coherent argument that it has already been thrown out of court
>> >> (remember Wallace?) in spite of your gleeful appreciation of it.
>> >
>> > I'm in good company. http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise2.html
>> >
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/a3f76440df6b36c1
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.int-property/msg/4d2438aa5d80f803
>> >
>> > And as for Wallace (his other case is under appeal now), to quote
>> > Hollaar:
>> >
>> > (http://groups.google.com/group/misc.int-property/msg/4d2438aa5d80f803)
>> >
>> > --
>> > There has been some mention in this newsgroup in the past about the
>> > antitrust suit in Indiana regarding the GPL (Daniel Wallace v. Free
>> > Software Foundation, Inc.).
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Get your attributions right. The above message by Hollaar contains
>> nothing from what you pretend to quote.
>
> I meant
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.int-property/msg/53225114939815b8
Which contains only a small fraction of what you pretended to quote.
Namely that the judge rejected some of the FSF's arguments according
to Hollaar. Those arguments, however, pertained to _necessary_ aided
competition by free access. So the judge rejected the notion that
_every_ free access to source code will aid competition regardless of
circumstances.
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with "copyright misuse" and
"linking" and similar.
In short: because you ran out of arguments, you tried pulling out
something which bears no relation whatsoever to the current
discussion, and then you did not get your attribution right, and then
you "quoted" and attributed lots of additional stuff out of thin air
that _also_ has not been written in the referenced posting.
You are really making a royal fool out of yourself. Not that this is
anything new, but there were times when you did so in a more coherent
way.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: license issue: calling a GPLv2 library
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote: >> >>Sez who? >> >> The definition of independant. > > Uh. Listen, brainwashed fanatic. A computer program work is a literary > work with expression being a set of statements or instructions to be > used directly or indirectly in a computer. Doctrine of independent > creation aside for a moment, that set of statements or instructions is > said to be under "independent" copyright if the AFC test shows that it > doesn't contain any protected elements copied from other work(s). > References to other computer program works are not protected elements. > Stop trying to expand the scope of rights under the GPL to infect > works under independent copyright (in this case, Gottfried's program). > This is copyright misuse. The penalty for copyright misuse is > copyright impotence (it gives impunity to real infringes in court of > law). There is no expansion of rights. 5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. Clear? Accepting the license is _optional_. So there is no expansion of copyright. You have all the rights given to you by law, _plus_ additional ones. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: license issue: calling a GPLv2 library
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Qua, 2006-06-21 às 17:09 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu: >> Note also Wallace's own (in the other case currently under appeal): >> >> - >> Not only competitors are harmed by the GPL scheme. Consumers lose >> because a lack of competition removes not just product choice but >> without competitive reward the incentive to improve product quality >> disappears. >> - >> >> http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_Red_Hat_2nd_ANSWER.pdf > > That's the same Wallace whose single case was dismissed for > futility, right? Also the same Wallace whose single case included a > quote from the judge saying the exact opposite of that, right? Not in Terekhov Lalaland. Every quote supports his views. It is just that the actual verdicts are all in error, as they don't quite jibe with Terekhov's interpretations of what has been said before. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: license issue: calling a GPLv2 library
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>>
>> Qua, 2006-06-21 Ã s 17:09 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
>> > Note also Wallace's own (in the other case currently under appeal):
>> >
>> > -
>> > Not only competitors are harmed by the GPL scheme. Consumers lose
>> > because a lack of competition removes not just product choice but
>> > without competitive reward the incentive to improve product quality
>> > disappears.
>> > -
>> >
>> > http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_Red_Hat_2nd_ANSWER.pdf
>>
>> That's the same Wallace whose single case was dismissed for futility,
>> right?
>
> Wrong. See below. Wallace filed two cases. This case is currently under
> appeal.
>
>> Also the same Wallace whose single case included a quote from the judge
>> saying the exact opposite of that, right?
>
> Exact opposite of what?
>
>>
>> Or do you think the judge was drunk (as you so famously insulted the
>> juridic system so often)?
>
> Uhmm. Let's see. Judge Young dismissed because according to him,
> Wallace "has not identified an anticompetitive effect". And yet his
> colleague Judge Tinder had no problems with Wallace's identification
> of anticompetitive effect ("By making certain software programs
> available to users at no charge, the GPL may be discouraging
> developers from creating new and better programs because they will
> not receive compensation for their work, thereby reducing the number
> of quality programs available to users. This may be considered
> anticompetitive effect, and it certainly can be inferred from what
> Mr. Wallace alleges in his Third Amended Complaint. Therefore, this
> court finds that the Third Amended Complaint states a claim for
> violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, under the rule of reason
> doctrine").
>
> So one of them must have been drunk (in the sense of having somewhat
> distorted view of reality). No?
No. It's been explained to you a few times, but you might have been
drunk. Judge Tinder tried reading a sensible interpretation into
Wallace's ramblings (if you don't have a lawyer representing you,
turning your gibberish into something comprehensible is largely the
duty of the judge) and constructed something which was most likely to
be the _legal_ essence of Wallace's complaint. The result described
in more appropriate terms what Wallace was supposed to be complaining
about _if_ one did not want to assume that he was babbling nonsense in
the first place. This refined wording of Wallace's alleged complaint
was then matched to the respective laws and it was found that even
when a judge tried making the best case from the mess Wallace
presented, the results simply were not sufficient for making enough of
a complaint that pursuing the case would have made any sense.
That is pretty unexciting when the court is responsible for making
Wallace's case. The court tried to make his case as good as a lawyer
would have made it, sort of "if there is any angle to the case, it
must have been this". Then it took a look at the results, and guess
what: they still did not meet the requirements for proceeding, even
when interpreted in the most favorable way.
That's all.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It appears that both Judges were totally drunk at some point. Occam's razor makes it more likely that it is just you who doesn't get it, whether due to being drunken or just dull. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> No. It's been explained to you a few times, but you might have been >> drunk. Judge Tinder tried reading a sensible interpretation into >> Wallace's ramblings (if you don't have a lawyer representing you, >> turning your gibberish into something comprehensible is largely the >> duty of the judge) and constructed something which was most likely to >> be the _legal_ essence of Wallace's complaint. The result described >> in more appropriate terms what Wallace was supposed to be complaining >> about _if_ one did not want to assume that he was babbling nonsense in >> the first place. This refined wording of Wallace's alleged complaint >> was then matched to the respective laws and it was found that even >> when a judge tried making the best case from the mess Wallace >> presented, the results simply were not sufficient for making enough of >> a complaint that pursuing the case would have made any sense. >> >> That is pretty unexciting when the court is responsible for making >> Wallace's case. The court tried to make his case as good as a lawyer >> would have made it, sort of "if there is any angle to the case, it >> must have been this". Then it took a look at the results, and guess >> what: they still did not meet the requirements for proceeding, even >> when interpreted in the most favorable way. >> >> That's all. > > That's all bullshit. The FSF simply managed to fool Judge Tinder > that Wallace lacks standing. Tinder recorgnized that "Plaintiff’s > Third Amended Complaint States a Claim Upon Which Relief can be > Granted" and that "Plaintiff’s Allegations Sufficiently Set Forth a > Violation of the Rule of Reason", but he was fooled by FSF's "even > if it were possible for Plaintiff to allege some harm to competition > in the abstract, Plaintiff has not alleged antitrust injury to > himself, and thus lacks standing." You have an interesting notion of "fooled". You'll find that every court can be "fooled" by substantial arguments, regardless of how many tantrums you throw. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> > That's all bullshit. The FSF simply managed to fool Judge Tinder >> > that Wallace lacks standing. Tinder recorgnized that "Plaintiff’s >> > Third Amended Complaint States a Claim Upon Which Relief can be >> > Granted" and that "Plaintiff’s Allegations Sufficiently Set Forth a >> > Violation of the Rule of Reason", but he was fooled by FSF's "even >> > if it were possible for Plaintiff to allege some harm to competition >> > in the abstract, Plaintiff has not alleged antitrust injury to >> > himself, and thus lacks standing." >> >> You have an interesting notion of "fooled". > > - > Accompanying Injury [...] You are fond of your quotation bubbles, but they don't amount to the results you want. You don't want to hear it when we explain it to you, and you don't want to hear it when the court explains it to the involved parties. Tough. Of course you are free to entertain your own legal standards in your imagination. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > David Kastrup wrote: >> > [...] >> >> > That's all bullshit. The FSF simply managed to fool Judge Tinder >> >> > that Wallace lacks standing. Tinder recorgnized that >> >> > "Plaintiff’s >> >> > Third Amended Complaint States a Claim Upon Which Relief can be >> >> > Granted" and that "Plaintiff’s Allegations Sufficiently Set >> >> > Forth a >> >> > Violation of the Rule of Reason", but he was fooled by FSF's "even >> >> > if it were possible for Plaintiff to allege some harm to competition >> >> > in the abstract, Plaintiff has not alleged antitrust injury to >> >> > himself, and thus lacks standing." >> >> >> >> You have an interesting notion of "fooled". >> > >> > - >> > Accompanying Injury >> >> [...] >> >> You are fond of your quotation bubbles, but they don't amount to >> the > > They amount to "substantial arguments" explaining to the appelate > court why the district court erred. Given your track record so far, I prefer waiting for the appellate court itself to state its findings. >> results you want. You don't want to hear it when we explain it to > > Try explaining what's wrong with Wallace's argument on injury. Can > you? There are so many things wrong that one does not know where to begin. Wallace purports to want to compete with some BSD-derived operating system offering. But there are free and reputable competitors in that market segment already without the GPL needing to price-fix anything. His offering is dead on arrival regardless of the GPL. Then there is no predatory pricing since RedHat is not selling below cost at all. They are turning a profit. And the reason they are turning a profit is exactly because they went with free software: that's what got them their customer base. It is an integral part of their business plan. They have the best value proposition, and that's what continues to give them _paying_ customers. The only way to argue that they have to split their purported business models and turn a profit in each of the _dependent_ market segments independently, is when they have monopoly power in one market segment and use that to compensate losses in an other segment in order to stifle competition. But RedHat has no monopoly power in operating systems, neither in general, nor of the Unixy type, nor of the Linux family. You won't, of course, accept this kind of reasoning from me and will try to smother it in heaps of non-relevant quotations. And you won't accept the findings of the appellate court ultimately. Instead you will update your quotation base with a few select out-of-context quotes which indicate to nobody but yourself that everything has gone wrong. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: license issue: calling a GPLv2 library
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > [...] >> Or are you _also_ against the concept of software that's available >> gratis? > > Depends. Gratis in violation of the Sherman Act (Section 1 and/or 2) > is bad for (global) economy. I'm of opinion that the GPL is very bad > for worldwide economic output and prosperity through productivity > gains. And that it clearly violates anti-price-fixing laws. Nonsense. Price-fixing is a voluntary agreement between parties to the detriment of other parties. But heeding an existing license is not a bilateral agreement, and everybody else is free to use and extend the software under the same license as everybody else. Agreement and compliance are different things. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> Then there is no predatory pricing since RedHat is not selling below >> cost at all. > > RedHat sells support, delivery, and maintenance contracts on annual > subscription bases. RedHat's GPL'd IP in pooled derivative and > collective works is price-fixed at "no charge" and is available > gratis. How can one talk about "price-fixed at no charge" in the same paragraph with "sells delivery contracts"? The price obviously is not fixed but variable, and people make use of the variation. >> They are turning a profit. > > Which just proves "a dangerous probability" that RedHat will > "recoup[ ] its investment in below-cost prices." Brooke Group, 509 > U.S. at 224. But there are no "below-cost prices". From the outset, RedHat has been profitable selling operating system copies. Yes, they aim to change their business focus, but not because their previous prices would have been below-cost. They turned a profit with their "below-cost" prices. > [...] > >> But RedHat has no monopoly power in operating systems, > > True, but that's beside the point. Wallace doesn't claim violation > of § 2 of the Sherman Act (Monopolizing trade a felony). His case is > an action under § 1 of the Sherman Act (Trusts, etc., in restraint > of trade illegal), not § 2. It has really nothing to do with > monopoly power. Sure, but without that implication there is no point in viewing the business model of RedHat as disparate branches. Their way of dealing with their intellectual property (and capacity) as their primary asset is turning a profit for them. They don't need to "recoup investment in below-cost prizes" since they are operating profitably in their total business. And it is nonsensical to talk about "recoup" when the branches are as intimately related as they are. That makes about as much sense as a supermarket talking about "recouping" the costs it pays for gasoline by selling above the net cost. That's not "recouping", it is "balancing" since the gasoline is an inseparable part of the operation, like the intellectual property of RedHat is an inseparable part of their service and delivery business. Without it, their business would fall apart. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: license issue: calling a GPLv2 library
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> Nonsense. Price-fixing is a voluntary agreement between parties to >> the detriment of other parties. But heeding an existing license is >> not a bilateral agreement, > > IP licenses are bilateral agreements/executary contracts. The GPL is not bilateral since the recipient is not required to accept it. >>and everybody else is free to use and >> extend the software under the same license as everybody else. > > Making illegal price-fixing conspiracy in violation of Sherman Act > by employing unlawful licensing agreement (i.e. contract) open for > everybody to join the combination doesn't make it any less illegal. A "conspiracy" which is in the open, free for anybody and does not require signing a contract, is not much of a conspiracy. Look it up in a dictionary, preferably one with legal focus. [And another quotation barrage utterly irrelevant to the case] -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > David Kastrup wrote: >> > [...] >> >> Then there is no predatory pricing since RedHat is not selling below >> >> cost at all. >> > >> > RedHat sells support, delivery, and maintenance contracts on annual >> > subscription bases. RedHat's GPL'd IP in pooled derivative and >> > collective works is price-fixed at "no charge" and is available >> > gratis. >> >> How can one talk about "price-fixed at no charge" in the same >> paragraph with "sells delivery contracts"? The price obviously is not >> fixed but variable, and people make use of the variation. > > Uh. Ok, once again: RedHat's IP is "price-fixed at no charge" and is > available gratis. Nothing variable. I don't see anything like "RedHat IP -- $0" listed on their page. In fact, they retain their IP and don't give their copyright away. They provide, however, downloads for $0, so they price a particular form of _copies_ at no charge. They also price other copy forms at larger charges. It is like a free art catalogue: you are free to cut and paste and frame stuff from the catalogue for your home, but they make their money with people buying the pieces advertised in that manner. > Ancillary service that they supply is priced far above costs of > providing the service (above predatory levels) and it is used to > recoup loses from GPL conspiracy and turn a profit. Got it now? It is called advertising. People recoup losses from the advertising conspiracy (there are even whole billboards and gazettes for the sole purpose of advertising) and turn a profit. This sort of "conspiracy" is pretty common nowadays. In fact, almost every business does it. Got it now? I think that you have omitted invectives and expletives from this thread for too long now. People will think you are an imposter if you don't correct this oversight soon. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: license issue: calling a GPLv2 library
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: >> >> Qui, 2006-06-22 Ã s 01:26 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu: >> > Many contracts don't require signing. Google "manifestation of assent". >> > One accepts the GPL contract by exercising exclusive right(s) granted >> > under it. >> >> But the GNU GPL is a Copyright *license* not a contract. > > Sez who? (Besides you and other brainwashed GNUtians, that is.) The GPL: 5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it. Since you are not required to accept the license, it is purely optional. > Recognizing that the existence of consensual licensing arrangements > significantly changes the applicable rules and the expectations of the > parties, federal courts have held that a party cannot normally pursue a > copyright infringement action based upon the licensees breach of > covenants in the license agreement. As a general rule, " if the > [licensees] improper conduct constitutes a breach of a covenant > undertaken by the licensee . . . and if such covenant constitutes an > enforceable contractual obligation, then the licensor will have the > cause of action for contract," not for copyright infringement. We are talking about a "license agreement" here, like when somebody clicks "I agree". There is no such process for the GPL. As such, it remains the recipient's option to choose whether he wants to get sued for breach of copyright or breach of contract in case that he does not heed the licensing conditions. This option is not available in cases where the agreement can be assumed as given by a process of registration or click-through or similar. "You are not required to accept this license" is not a part of the usual software offerings. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > [...] >> Why doesn't Daniel attack OpenBSD? Or Dragonfly BSD? Or FreeBSD? > > He doesn't attack the BSD because the BSD license terms don't contain > any price-fixing provisions. But they still ruin his business prospects, so it would not seem that the "price-fixing" of the GPL is the problem. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > [...] >> > telnet www.danwal.com 80 > > Now try telephone. This is so going to convince a court that Wallace actually attempts to sell something. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
